linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] per anon_vma lock and turn anon_vma rwsem lock to rwlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1383615840.11046.265.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date:	Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:44:00 -0800
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] per anon_vma lock and turn anon_vma rwsem lock to
 rwlock_t

On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against 
> > > > > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree?
> > > > 
> > > > I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest 
> > > > version.
> > > > 
> > > > The last on-lkml submission was in this thread:
> > > > 
> > > >   Subject: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > I queued bunchs of tests about one hour ago, and already got some
> > > results(If necessary, I can add more data tomorrow when those tests are
> > > finished):
> > 
> > What kind of system are you using to run these workloads on?
> 
> I queued jobs on 5 testboxes:
>   - brickland1: 120 core Ivybridge server
>   - lkp-ib03:   48 core Ivybridge server
>   - lkp-sb03:   32 core Sandybridge server
>   - lkp-nex04:  64 core NHM server
>   - lkp-a04:    Atom server
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                v3.12-rc7      fe001e3de090e179f95d  
> > > ------------------------  ------------------------  
> > >                                 -9.3%               brickland1/micro/aim7/shared
> > >                                 +4.3%               lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/fork_test
> > >                                 +2.2%               lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/shared
> > >                                 -2.6%               TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry if I'm missing something, but could you elaborate more on what
> > these percentages represent?
> 
>                v3.12-rc7      fe001e3de090e179f95d  
> ------------------------  ------------------------  
>                                 -9.3%               brickland1/micro/aim7/shared
> ....
> ....
>                                 -2.6%               TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min
> 
> The comparation base is v3.12-rc7, and we got 9.3 performance regression
> at commit fe001e3de090e179f95d, which is the head of rwsem performance
> optimizations patch set.

Yunahan, thanks for the data.  This I assume is with the entire rwsem
v8 patchset. Any idea of the run variation on the workload?

Tim

> 
> "brickland1/micro/aim7/shared" tells the testbox(brickland1) and testcase:
> shared workfile of aim7.
> 
> The last line tell what field we are comparing, and it's
> "aim7.2000.jobs-per-min" in this case. 2000 means 2000 users in aim7.
> 
> > Are they anon vma rwsem + optimistic
> > spinning patches vs anon vma rwlock?
> 
> I tested "[PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations" only.
> 
> > 
> > Also, I see your running aim7, you might be interested in some of the
> > results I found when trying out Ingo's rwlock conversion patch on a
> > largish 80 core system: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/29/280
> 
> Besides aim7, I also tested dbench, hackbench, netperf, pigz. And as you
> can image and see from the data, aim7 benifit most from the anon_vma
> optimization stuff due to high contention of anon_vma lock.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 	--yliu
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/